I CAN VOTE FOR A CANDIDATE EVEN THOUGH HE/SHE IS PRO-CHOICE

Dear George,

Thank you for your careful and considerate response to my thoughts. Also, thank you for the similar care in your bulletin article that alerted the congregation to what was left out of one of my paragraphs specifically the bishops' stance on the intrinsic evil of abortion. Click on April, scroll to "Energy" and read the comments, George's included.)

That said, may we go on to discuss your conclusion in your comments published under the Energy article

Your conclusion from their document was, “If a candidate supports an intrinsic evil, she/he is disqualified and may not be voted for.”

I disagree with your conclusion. I say, though there are seriously grave reasons that must be considered, I can vote for, say, a pro-abortion candidate. The basis for my difference from you is found in the theological element of a direct act, a formal cooperation. When I vote for a pro-abortion candidate, I do not perform a direct act such as, for example, an office holder who votes for a program or law, which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. (30) His act would be a direct act. The bishops point to the concept of a direct act or formal cooperation when they say, “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil.” (34) (Italics mine) Voting for a candidate who is pro-abortion as one of many of his positions is not a direct act or formal cooperation in grave evil.

To discuss further how we arrive at different conclusions, let us look at examples you provided in your argument. You quote the bishops, “[Intrinsic evils} must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned.” (22) When you quote this phrase, are you reading into their statement that voting is a form of direct support for abortion and that the vote is of such impact that abortion is condoned? On the contrary, I note that nowhere in their document do the bishops say that voting for a pro-abortion candidate must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. I would argue that voting does not directly support any single issue of a candidate.

Again you quote the bishops, “Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.” (42) The word “may” in their statement seems quite important to me.

Therefore, I do not see that voting for a pro-abortion candidate directly supports abortion nor that I am not defending the right to life with maximum determination. I may with maximum determination work for the right to life but believe voting for a candidate due to serious moral obligations may not be the time.
Regarding your statement that my selection implied that abortion is one issue among many. Believe me, I do not consider a candidate’s position on intrinsic evils to be as one issue among many to be considered. I believe in and understand the gravity of intrinsic evils and include them in forming my conscience. It is understandable with the huge numbers of abortions--and how easy it would be to avert ones eyes regarding abortion--that the bishops use every persuasive word they can to make sure there may be no doubt about the magnitude of the evil.

There are many other considerations which go into the forming of my conscience that are full page discussions in themselves. For example, the magnitude of Christ’s commandment to care for and love all our fellow human beings against whether or not it is possible that Roe v. Wade will be overturned no matter how many pro-life candidates are elected. What I read is Roe v. Wade has been too long established as law.

Furthermore, almost no candidate is actually pro-abortion. Most I know do not approve of abortion, themselves, but believe that the choice should be left to the woman. So they may be very open to reducing abortions by other means actually more effective than focusing just on the law. For example, abortions can be effectively reduced by supporting women to have their children. (With reference to your slavery example, consider that Lincoln was pro-slavery when he was elected.)

Therefore let me review points the bishops make that support my conclusion:
1. The bishops say, Catholics are not single-issue voters (though a candidates position involving an intrinsic evil… may lead a voter to disqualify a candidate.) (42)
2. They say, the second temptation is to choose a pro-life candidate (if that were available) to protect innocent human life and to dismiss other serious threats to human life and dignity. (29)
3. They say, the right to life implies and is linked to other human rights—to the basic good that every human person needs to live and thrive.
4. They say, it is not enough to oppose evil, we must do good. (What I think the bishops mean by this statement is that lots of people preach and pray against abortion and fail to fulfill with the same determination Jesus’ second commandment to love and care for our fellow man.
5. They say, “The consistent ethic of life provides a moral framework…and rightly understood, neither treats all issues as morally equivalent nor reduces Catholic teaching to one or two issues.”(40)
6. They say, “ In this statement, we bishops do not intend to tell Catholics for whom or against whom to vote.”

Thank you, George, for your willingness to dialogue with me on this subject. I discuss with you because I am interested in your thoughts. I invite others to join our discussion.

Susan